[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 108 (Monday, July 22, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H8078-H8084]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MEDICARE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May
12, 1995, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] is recognized for
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am in the well tonight because I feel
very strongly that myself, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms.
DeLauro], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink] and others that
are going to be joining us here tonight, Democrats, spent a lot of time
last year as well as this year as part of basically an effort to try to
make the point, and I believe successfully made the point that the
Republican leadership in this Congress was trying to destroy Medicare
as we know it.
Democrats basically started Medicare over 30 years ago, Democratic
Presidents, Democratic Congresses, because they were concerned that so
many senior citizens did not have health care, either were not able to
afford health insurance or found themselves unable to obtain health
insurance as they became senior citizens. Over the last 30 years,
Medicare has been very successful as a program in guaranteeing that
almost all, almost 100 percent of the senior citizens in this country
get health care and get good health care.
It is not only a question of the fact that they are covered by
Medicare but they have a choice of physicians, they have a choice of
hospitals and the level of coverage, what is included in their
coverage, as well as the quality of care that they receive generally is
pretty good. That is a dramatic change from the situation before
Medicare existed.
Well, as my colleagues know, we faced a new Congress back in January
of 1995 under the Republican leadership. One of the first things, and I
have to admit I was very surprised, one of the first things that
happened was that a budget was presented which essentially cut Medicare
as well as Medicaid drastically, primarily to pay for tax cuts for tax
breaks, if you will, mostly for wealthy Americans.
But the proposals that came from the Republican leadership did not
just cut Medicare, did not just cut the amount of money that was going
into Medicare, they also tried to change the system dramatically so
that senior citizens would not have a choice of doctors. Many would be
pushed into managed care. many would also find that they had to pay
higher out-of-pocket costs because their part B premiums would go up or
because they would have to pay more as a copayment to their physician.
What we saw is, as I said, a dramatic change in the structure of
Medicare as well as drastic cuts in the amount of money that would go
into the program. We fought hard against these Republican proposals,
and we were successful. The Medicare program is today still the way it
was 2 years ago. The dramatic cuts have not been implemented, and I
suppose not surprisingly, because the Republican leadership realized at
some point over the last 18 months that this was not working and that
we were getting the message across, if you will, to the American public
that this is what the Republican leadership wanted to do.
All of a sudden, we see where the Republicans do not want to talk
about Medicare anymore. They sort of pretend like all these debates and
all these votes, these many times when they tried to cut it and change
it, never occurred. So I was not surprised that last week 3 House
Republican leaders held a press conference, last Wednesday, to
basically discuss the new ads that the AFL-CIO has been putting on the
air in various parts of the country where they point out that Speaker
Gingrich and other Republican leaders were pushing for these Medicare
cuts and basically changing, I would say actually destroying Medicare
as we know it.
{time} 1945
The Republican leaders basically got up and said, oh, those things
are not true, we never tried to do that. Well, let me tell Members that
they did and regardless of their rhetoric, the old statement ``Actions
speak louder than words,'' well, the fact is the actions do speak
louder than words in this case.
Whatever the Republicans say now, the bottom line is that after
taking control of Congress, Newt Gingrich and the Republicans set
themselves to the task of slashing Medicare by $270 billion. If this
Congress had passed and the President had signed, which we did not,
their Medicare bill, seniors would have been forced out of traditional
Medicare by making it prohibitively expensive to stay in the program.
They would have been forced. Basically, they would have lost the
choice, I should say, of their doctors and hospitals because
essentially they would have been forced into managed care where they
did not have the choice of doctors and hospitals.
I do not think anybody really should be surprised by this because we
know well that it took something like 13 years for Democrats to
overcome Republican opposition and enact the Medicare Program on July
30, 1965. And in 1965, 93 percent of the House Republicans, including
then Representative Bob Dole, now the Republican candidate for
President, voted for a substitute that would have killed Medicare as we
know it. Over 60 percent of Republican Senators voted for a similar
substitute.
So we know historically the Republicans were opposed to Medicare,
they continued that effort when they took back the majority in this
Congress, and regardless of what the Speaker or the now Presidential
candidate Bob Dole says, the bottom line is that they have over the
years consistently tried to either stop Medicare from becoming law or
change it dramatically in a most negative way.
I would like to now yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms.
DeLauro] who really has been outspoken on this issue from the very
beginning and really led the whole battle to make sure that we retain
Medicare as it is and not make the drastic changes that the Republican
leadership proposed.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from New
Jersey for taking the special order tonight because in fact the whole
issue of Medicare is critically important to this Nation. I think, and
I know my colleague from New Jersey feels this way and our other
colleagues who are here tonight, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Klink] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], also feel the same
way, that Medicare represents not a program but in fact what our values
are in this country, in that it says to people who have worked hard all
of their lives, who have played by the rules, who have raised their
families, who have contributed to the successful economy of this
Nation, that when you retire and when you are a senior citizen that you
will have a safe and a dignified and a decent retirement and that you
will be able to have health care.
I thank my colleague from New Jersey for his efforts in talking about
Medicare and also about health care for seniors in this country. He has
led the fight on that issue and I thank him for laying out the fact
that it used to be in 1946, or before Medicare that we did not have the
opportunity for seniors to have health care. That meant that families
had to take in their mothers or fathers or their loved ones and somehow
work out health care and was not clear how that was going to get paid
for. With the advent of Medicare and today in 1996, we are looking at
99 percent of seniors who are covered.
Let me just go back for a second because it was not 1946, but before
Medicare only 46 percent of seniors had health care coverage. So
Medicare has meant a difference in the lives of seniors today, and it
is something they come to count on, and not as a handout but something
that they have paid for and that is there for them now.
But I think it is very interesting that in this Congress, as has been
pointed out, that there is a war that is being waged on Medicare. The
Republican leadership, with the House Speaker Newt Gingrich at the
helm, is truly
[[Page H8079]]
bent on dismantling Medicare, and I think it is worth repeating the
quote that the Speaker made some months ago that, and this is what he
said: ``Now we don't want to get rid of it in round one because we
don't think that that is the right way to go through a transition, but
we believe it is going to wither on the vine because we think people
are voluntarily going to leave it.''
Now, after the wither on the vine quote appeared in various media
accounts, Mr. Gingrich's spokesman, Tony Blankley, was questioned on
the accuracy of the quote, which they are now trying to run away from.
They cannot move away from the quote fast enough. But Newt Gingrich's
spokesman, Tony Blankley, was questioned on the accuracy of the quote.
On October 26, 1995, Gingrich spokesman Tony Blankley confirmed
Gingrich's statement to the Los Angeles Times. Blankley said that
Gingrich's comments were ``consistent with the Republican belief that
most seniors would voluntarily choose to leave the traditional Medicare
fee-for-service system in favor of health maintenance organizations and
other managed care networks. It will mean the end of the system as most
seniors know it.''
These are words that are not made up. This is a direct quote from
Tony Blankley. And yet the Republican leadership, the Republican
National Committee, are currently objecting to a hard-hitting ad
campaign, and I concur it is a hard-hitting campaign, as it should be,
which is running across the country that highlights their position on
cutting Medicare, and they are running as fast as they can away from
these quotes.
I just point out what my colleague said about the then representative
Dole. He prides himself on being 1 of 12 to have voted against Medicare
and has said within recent months how proud he is of that vote. Well, I
will tell you, people can run but they cannot hide. You cannot hide
from the record and quite frankly, the record stinks. It really does.
I will make one point on what has been said about now in his
revisionist history on this quote about withering on the vine that in
fact he did not mean Medicare, but something called the Health Care
Financing Administration. But it is hard to understand how individuals,
except perhaps the employees, could leave an agency. This is
ridiculous, people do not do that. If the employees of the agency
leave, what has been implied all along, that it was the Medicare system
that people were going to leave, that is what this is about. These are
individuals who have a record, truly a record of being opposed to
Medicare, and now they ask for the country to put their faith and their
trust in people who had been willing to dismantle this operation.
I just make a final point, I know my other colleagues want to get
into the discussion, the 1997 Republican budget reflects the fact that
they do in fact want to see Medicare dismantled and turned into
something else with a proposal of $168 billion in Medicare cuts over
the next 6 years. We have been through this time and time again, and
when we look at what they want to do with the $168 billion, this year
it is $168 billion, last year it was $270 billion, they talk about
having moderated. But if you take a look at this, the $270 billion cut
would have been a 19 percent cut from Medicare; this time it is a 17
percent cut. So it is really the same numbers, if you will, and it is
no coincidence that what they want to try to do with this money is to
pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Last year it was $245
billion in tax cuts, this year it is $176 or $180 billion in tax breaks
for the wealthy.
As I said, they can run but they cannot hide from the comments that
they have made in the past past and in the most recent past about how
they want to see this system go away and take away from seniors in this
country something that they have come to recognize as helpful to them
in being able to truly survive in their older years and something that
they deserve, a sacred trust if you will, that we committed to when
this system was put in place.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for allowing me to
participate in this effort this evening.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman and just,
if I could, briefly comment on what the gentlewoman said when she
raised again the quote from Speaker Gingrich about Medicare withering
on the vine. It is amazing to me how he can now suggest that somehow
that statement was only meant to be applicable to the fact that they
were changing Medicare to force people into managed care, as opposed to
the traditional fee-for-service system, because it seems to me that is
exactly the context in which the program would wither on the vine.
If you take away a lot of the money from Medicare and make the
significant cuts that the Republicans have proposed, then the quality
of care has to suffer because there is not going to be the money
available to provide the level of services and the quality of services
that Medicare now provides. If you force everyone into managed care, or
you make managed care cheaper than the traditional fee-for-service
system where you can choose your own doctor and then so many people do
not have a choice of doctor anymore, then the reality is that Medicare
has changed and does begin to wither on the vine. More and more people
will find it necessary to supplement the program if they can afford it,
which a lot of them cannot, in order to be able to have their own
doctor.
So it does wither on the vine. That is exactly what the quote was
meant to say, and that is exactly what they were doing.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield now to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].
Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New Jersey [Mr.
Pallone]. A lot has been made about whether or not this ad has been
taken out of context, and some letters from the Republicans to various
television station managers have threatened them that there was going
to be a libel suit, there was going to be legal action if they did not
pull these ads that are being run by the AFL-CIO.
Now why, you might ask, Mr. Speaker, is the AFL-CIO being involved?
Well, they are involved because they represent the labor unions that
represent the working people of this Nation, people who have played by
the rules, working men and women who get up early every morning, they
go to work, they perform a task, they pay into pension funds, they pay
their taxes, and they are told Medicare will be there for you when you
retire. Medicaid will be there if you need to go to a nursing home and
you fall within the earning abilities to have Medicaid pay for that
nursing home care. But now they are seeing that there is a majority
party, the Republicans, who want to see this wither on the vine.
So the AFL-CIO said, look, the corporate interests of this country
and their PAC's have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in promoting
the Republican line. Let labor weigh in with a $35 million buy-in and
let us inform the voters what our position is on this. The Republicans
have said, no, we do not want this. They are running away, as my
colleagues have said, from the Newt Gingrich quote saying that no, he
was talking about HCFA, the Federal Health Care Finance Administration
that administers Medicare and Medicaid. Well, let me read the quote,
Mr. Speaker, and let Members and let everyone else in the shot of my
voice decide what is taken out of context.
The Speaker said: ``Now let me talk a little bit about Medicare. Let
me start at the vision level so you understand how radically different
we are and why it's so hard for the press corps to cover us.''
Speaker Gingrich continued as he was speaking to an audience from
Blue Cross and Blue Shield. He said: ``Medicare is the 1964 Blue Cross
plan codified into law by Lyndon Johnson and it is about what you'd--I
mean, if you went out into the marketplace tomorrow morning and said
`Hi, I've got a 1964 Blue Cross plan.' I'll let you decide how
competitive you'd be. But I don't think very.''
Speaker Gingrich continued to say: ``So what we're trying to do,
first of all, is say, O.K., here is a Government monopoly plan. We're
designing a free-market plan,'' he says and he is obviously referring
to Medicare and Medicaid because that is all he has talked about so
far, has not mentioned HCFA.''
Then the Speaker continues: ``Now they're very different models. You
[[Page H8080]]
know, we tell Boris Yeltsin, `Get rid of centralized command
bureaucracies. Go to the marketplace.' ''
And then finally Speaker Gingrich does refer to the Health Care
Financing Administration. He says: ``O.K., what do you think the Health
Care Financing Administration is? It is a centralized command
bureaucracy. It is everything we are telling Boris Yeltsin to get rid
of. Now, we don't get rid of it in round one because we don't think
that's politically smart and we don't think that's the right way to go
through a transition, but we believe it's going to wither on the vine
because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it--
voluntarily.''
Now, voluntary leave HCFA or voluntarily leave Medicare?
{time} 2000
You cannot leave HCFA unless you work for the agency. And on this
assumption the Republican leadership is going out with their lawyers
writing to television stations and saying pull those ads. How dare the
AFL-CIO tell the people of this country what the Republican Congressmen
have been voting to do?
How dare they not? It is their duty. When people play by the rules,
it is our duty to tell them that we have changed the rules or that we
have one party or the other that wants to change the rules, and that
party is the majority party.
Now, we understand in this country, and we hear on the floor of the
House a lot of talk about Christian morals. We hear a lot of talk about
patriotism. I am reminded of a quote by John Foster Dulles, who once
said, and I will paraphrase but I am very close, he said something
about this country would be in very poor condition if we only saved for
the battlefield the strongest human qualities.
I think he was talking about the qualities of selflessness, of
patriotism and caring and bravery, all of the things that we view as
important on the battlefield to somebody who is a patriot.
But what he said is we do not use those qualities only on the
battlefield, we are to use them in our everyday life. How patriotic it
would be, how Christian it would be to take care of our parents and our
grandparents. How patriotic it would be and how Christian it would be
to make sure that we did not punish children because their parents
happened to be on welfare too long.
So we talk on one side of the Republican side about being patriotic
and about having Christian values, and on the other hand the
legislation that we attempt to cram down the throats of this Chamber
and the people of this country is a completely different kind of
legislation.
It is very clear to me that Speaker Gingrich was talking about
leaving Medicare wither and die on the vine, not the Health Care
Financing Administration. The handful of people who work over there
might leave voluntarily, I do not know that they are going to quit
their jobs.
We are talking about a health care system designed in 1964 when 30
percent of our senior citizens were living in poverty because they had
no health care. The corporations of this Nation did not voluntarily
take care of people in their old age. They did not provide health care
for them. They did not provide pensions for them in many instances. So
we developed in 1934 a Social Security system to take care of people in
their old age and to give them some money coming in.
In 1964, again in 1965, we created an insurance company and we called
it Medicare. We also added Medicaid. And we said let us take care of
the disabled and let us take care of the poor children and let us take
care of these folks, also.
Now, 30 years later, the Republicans get control of the House. Very
proud is Bob Dole, as my colleagues have said tonight, that he was 1 of
12 that did not vote for it. He was proud that he did not like Medicare
back then. But why was Medicare created? Why was Social Security
created? Why was the public school system created? It was created
because the corporations and the robber barons were not educating the
children of their workers.
All of these programs, the reason that we have all of this Government
is because the corporations did not do these things voluntarily. So we
the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union
and to have domestic tranquility and to provide for other generations,
both those who have passed and those who are coming up, have created
programs of social safety nets.
I know that is an oft-used term we throw around, but it is true; it
is what it is. We have these social safety nets, and they are there for
a reason. Now the AFL-CIO, that represents roughly one in every five
working people and is responsible for the fact that the workers of
America today have many of the things they do have, is under attack.
We have various subcommittee chairmen and committee chairmen from the
Republican side putting out press releases and holding hearings that
are intimating that, if you belong to a labor union, you are either, A,
Communist or, B, you must belong to the mob. One or the other: You are
either a Communist or you belong to the mob.
This gives me a problem. Now all of a sudden, and I will tell you,
Mr. Speaker, I come from having been in broadcasting for 24 years. I
worked for more than one or two radio and television stations. Now they
are threatening the radio and television stations of this Nation,
saying, if you carry this ad by the AFL-CIO, that which, by the way,
does not have an actor reading Speaker Gingrich's words, it takes
Speaker Gingrich saying his own words about what he wants to see
Medicare do, and that is to wither on the vine and to die. There is no
question.
This is not something that is up for debate. For the leadership of
the Republican Party to hold a press conference last week to try to
create some kind of smoke screen is nothing more than that, it is a
smoke screen and a very poor one. And the American people, Mr. Speaker,
will see through it.
I yield back to my friend from New Jersey.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman. I want to
say briefly I am so glad he pointed out how the Repulbican leadership
is really trying to gag this whole issue and trying to go after the
media and those stations that cover these ads. From the very beginning,
and we have the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Stupak, and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Congressman Klink, who are also members of
the Committee on Commerce with myself, and we can remember when
Medicare, when this Republican Medicare proposal came before our
committee, there was only one hearing. The Republican leadership did
not want their proposed cuts and the changes in Medicare that they were
proposing to be aired with the public. When the senior citizens showed
up at the hearing, they were actually arrested.
Mr. KLINK. If the gentleman would yield on that point.
Mr. PALLONE. Certainly.
Mr. KLINK. I thank the gentleman for mentioning that, because 1 week
earlier, in the same Committee on Commerce, the Committee on Commerce
is a very important committee of the House of Representatives. We say
it is the oldest committee in the Congress, and we are very proud to be
there. We try to work on many issues and have worked on many issues in
this committee: Telecommunications Act, securities reform. On many
things we have worked in a bipartisan manner. The committee has
traditionally worked in that respect.
A week earlier, if memory serves me, we had a senior citizens group
come in that were in favor, supposedly, of the Republican changes to
gut Medicare. They had bags of mail. They interrupted the committee
hearing and dumped the bags of mail in support of the Republican
Medicare, I call it the Medicare rape and pillage, but that is probably
my own words; and nothing was said. Nothing was done.
However, when another group of senior citizens who were from the
Washington, D.C., Virginia, Maryland area came in, the committee
chairman ordered them to be arrested. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Stupak, myself, the gentleman from Illinois Mr. Rush, and the gentleman
from Ohio, Mr. Sherrod Brown, went with them. We said, if they were
going to be arrested, we are going to go with them.
I want the gentleman to understand some of these people were in
walkers, some in wheelchairs. Some had canes.
[[Page H8081]]
And they were going to arrest them? They did not disrupt as much as the
previous group that had dumped the mail. But, see, they were in favor
of what the chairman and the Republican majority wanted to do, and so
we did not worry about that.
By the way, I might mention that a vast amount of the mail from the
previous week that was dumped by the first group that was allowed to
participate because they were in favor of what the Republicans were
doing, we found out, was coming from people that either did not exist
or were dead. So I guess dead people are in favor of what the
Republicans want to do with Medicare because they do not need it
anymore.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back.
Mr. PALLONE. And every one of you, I certainly know the gentlewoman
from Connecticut and everyone else here, I believe, we were forced,
because we could not get a hearing in order to tell the truth about
what the Republicans were doing, we were forced to go out in the lawn
in the rain, which was a memorable day to have a hearing, to tell the
truth. So I see this almost as a first amendment issue.
The Republicans do not want the truth to be told. So they are now
threatening the media, the way they threatened and tried to gag the
people that came and tried to testify at the hearing. They just do not
want the truth to come out.
I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the gentleman for convening this special order
and for yielding. The gentleman is undoubtedly aware, as all of us are,
that we are 15 weeks away from the last day of campaigning in this
election. Many of us are counting the days as they approach. I am sure
many ordinary American citizens are counting for those days to end as
well, but it is a significant election we now face in 1996.
I think, despite the fact that I am a candidate in the election, as
all of us are, I think it is significant far beyond our personal
involvement. I really believe this may be the starkest contrast, the
clearest choice that American voters have faced since Franklin Delano
Roosevelt ran against Herbert Hoover in 1932. I do not think there has
been a time in our history beyond that year that we have had such a
sharp contrast.
It is curious that 4 years ago, when there was a choice at the
Presidential level, the American people were told they could continue
the policies of George Bush or take a chance with the policies of Bill
Clinton. Certainly Mr. Perot was in the race, but those were the two
major candidates. There was a bit of risk-taking involved because those
voting for Bill Clinton, Governor of Arkansas, really had to accept his
platform and his promise. They did not know what he would actually do
as President of the United States.
It took a leap of faith for them to elect Bill Clinton as President
of the United States and give him a chance to govern as the highest
elected leader in this great Nation.
But it is a much different choice we face in 15 weeks. There is no
leap of faith involved. We know exactly what the choices will be. We
know what Bill Clinton and Al Gore have fought for. We know what the
Democratic Party stands for. And we know very clearly on the issue of
Medicare what the Republican leadership stands for.
If Bob Dole ends up being the nominee of his party, and there is some
speculation he may not be, but I suspect he will be, if he ends up
being the nominee of his party, can the voters trust Medicare with Bob
Dole? Well, look back 31 years ago when Bob Dole sat on this very floor
as a Member of the House of Representatives and in his judgment decided
that the enactment of Medicare was a bad idea.
Now, many of us cast votes years ago that we would like to have over
again and perhaps change, but Bob Dole is consistent. He recently said,
when asked, it was the right vote to vote against Medicare. He knew it
was not going to work.
So, here we have an unrepentant Bob Dole, voted against Medicare, who
is seeking to become President of the United States and have the
primary responsibility as President for the future of Medicare. Should
this cause some concern and caution and pause among voters who worry
about the future of Medicare? Well, I think so.
Let us assume for a moment that the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Newt
Gingrich, continues to be the putative leader of the Republican Party
and asks to be Speaker again, if he has that opportunity at the 1996
election. Is there any question in anyone's mind on what he will do to
Medicare? Well, we already know his game plan. He was totally
unrepentant and said it was wither on the vine. He would cut $270
billion out of Medicare in order to provide tax breaks for wealthy
American people.
So those who are looking for a protector of Medicare in Newt Gingrich
and the House Republicans had better keep looking. Unfortunately, on
the other side of the rotunda, in the Senate, the Republican leadership
is in lockstep with Mr. Gingrich and his thinking.
So in 15 weeks the voters will have their last night and their last
day and hour of deliberation before making what I think will be the
most important choice, political choice in this half century, in this
1996 election. They will know what they can choose from: Bill Clinton,
running for President, who vetoed the Gingrich-Dole cuts in Medicare,
or the Gingrich-Dole team, which will come in and change Medicare and
allow it to wither on the vine, as Mr. Gingrich has said.
They will have a choice between Bill Clinton and his support for
Medicaid, which is so important for poor children, disabled people, and
elderly folks in nursing homes, or they can turn to the Dole and
Gingrich team which wanted to make massive cuts in Medicaid, cuts that
really would have endangered the future of a lot of young people and
elderly alike.
They can vote for Bill Clinton and Al Gore, who have supported
college student loans, who are talking now about creative ways to help
working families pay for college education, talking about the
opportunities of education and training, or the Dole-Gingrich team.
And what did they propose? They continue to suggest cutting college
student loans, making them more expensive for kids from middle-income
families, make it more difficult for kids from families like my own to
ever have a chance to go to college.
And finally they can look at the environmental protection. They know
what Bill Clinton's record has been. They know what the Democrats have
stood for in Congress. And they know very clearly what we are going to
have if it is a Dole-Gingrich leadership on Capitol Hill and in
Washington, DC, the same Newt Gingrich who proposed eliminating 14
environmental protection laws endangering the safety of the air we
breathe and the water that we drink.
{time} 2015
This is a stark contrast. Republicans are very proud of what they
stand for. I admire their tenacity. They are going to stick with this
no matter what. But I think the voters, and particularly moderate
Republicans and independent voters, see through the Dole-Gingrich
agenda.
I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for bringing up the issue of
Medicare tonight. I think he focuses us on what our decision as a
Nation will be in 15 weeks. It will be the most important decision of
my lifetime, and I sincerely hope that the people of this country will
stick the Clinton-Gore leadership and the Democratic leadership on
Capitol Hill, to bring about the right kind of change, to not go too
far, as Mr. Dole and Mr. Gingrich have gone in their last year and a
half together as a team here on Capitol Hill. I thank the gentleman for
yielding this time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to just add onto something that my
colleague from Illinois spoke about. That is, whom do you trust? Do you
trust Bob Dole and his commentary about being proud to have voted
against Medicare, and Newt Gringrich wanting it to wither on the vine?
Most recently in the publication ``Roll Call'' Morton Kondracke, a
journalist, wrote in his column: ``Asked whether Republicans will come
back with a different agenda in 1997, the House majority whip, Tom
DeLay, who was a Republican from Texas, told Morton Kondracke, this is
a gentleman
[[Page H8082]]
who is third in charge of the House of Representatives,'' said, again,
``We wouldn't change a thing, including the plan to reduce Medicare
growth by $270 billion over 6 years.''
So the entire leadership, the entire leadership is bound and
determined to see Medicare turned into something other than what it is
now and the kinds of protections that it provides to seniors, This is
not a passing moment, a past moment. This is a current moment, when we
have the Gingrich-Dole leadership of this Congress in lockstep opposed
to the Medicare system. Then they ask the American public to trust them
with this program. How can it be?
I thank my colleague from Illinois for laying that out.
Mr. PALLONE. I think the gentlewoman is right. Just from talking to
my own constituents, particularly this weekend, I think people
understand that that is why they wanted President Clinton where he is,
because they are concerned about the hurt that this Congress is doing,
if you will, to the average American, particularly on the Medicare
issue.
I yield to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for
yielding to me.
I would like to take special note of the work he has done in this
area, in bringing this health care and health issue to the attention of
the American public, and also Ms. DeLauro, who has been here night
after night helping raise the level of consciousness of what is really
going on in this country and in this Congress.
As I sat in my office tonight, I heard you speak of what the Speaker
had said about trying to get Medicare, ``We will let it wither on the
vine,'' and Mr. Dole bragging about how in 1965, he fought against
Medicare. Then I was pleased to come down tonight to join you and Mr.
Klink. We sit on the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the
Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, which has jurisdiction over
Medicare and Medicaid. Again, Mr. Durbin, who was here tonight, had
many, many words to speak on this subject.
We were just talking about trust here a few minutes ago. Who do they
trust to look after the health care needs of this Nation? Is it going
to be the President or citizen Bob Dole?
As we take a look at it, I think more than just words we should look
beyond the words. Let us look at some of the proposals that have been
brought forth before the Committee on Commerce, the Subcommittee on
Health and Environment which both of us sit on now.
Who do the children and the seniors of this country trust to provide
for their needs? If we take a look at Medicaid, and we talked about
Medicare, I guess is the most popular, but Medicaid and the drastic
reductions proposed in Medicaid, Medicaid takes care of children, but
also two-thirds of our seniors rely on Medicaid for nursing home care.
But the so-called Medicaid reform proposal that was put forth in
early June here before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the
Subcommittee on Health and Environment, Democrats insisted on a couple
things. First of all, we insisted to ensure that there is a safety net
for elderly, the disabled and for impoverished children. The Democrats
also insisted that Medicaid be a joint Federal-State partnership which
would work together to provide critical health care needs for those who
really truly need it in this country.
What did the Republican bill do? It removed the guarantee of health
care for the elderly and disabled and replaced it with the hope of
Governors across this country. I have no problem with Governors. I
think they do a good job. But what my Republican friends forgot and
they did not add was, we give it to the Governors, the reason why we
have a Medicaid Program in the first place is because the States could
not and did not provide for those people who needed care.
So the GOP bill, while it allows the States to define the scope, the
amount and duration of any Medicaid benefit, and in that bill it states
the Governors need to provide a nursing home benefit, it would allow
the States to limit that nursing home benefit to just 5 days. People do
not go to the nursing home because they only need care for 5 days.
So they would have 5 days a year, that is what the bill said, 5 days
every calendar year. The average care for a person in a nursing home is
$38,000. So we are going to help with 5 days' worth and after that they
are on their own.
Where does that money go? For all the populations that this bill, the
Republican bill, purported to protect, the elderly, disabled, children
and low-income families, it did not even guarantee that they would
receive quality care, let alone adequate care, when the nursing home
benefit is defined as 5 days.
I received a letter from the Michigan Health and Hospital Association
on this block grant, Medicaid block grant proposal. Here is what they
said, and I quote:
We fear that under the Republican Medicaid block grant
program, health care services for our most vulnerable
population, the elderly living in nursing homes, the poor and
children, may be jeopardized as hospitals who continue to
bear a disproportionate share of the burden of caring for
these individuals face reduced payments.
In other words, they are going to cut, for those who provide the
care, even further.
Here is what else the Republican bill did. Currently, under current
law, we have a prohibition against spousal and family impoverishment.
That is current law. You cannot put a family into poverty while they
are trying to provide for their parent in a nursing home. Unlike
current law, the proposal does not prohibit States from charging high
copayments for Medicaid or contributions associated with long-term
care.
Another troubling aspect of the proposal, and I asked the drafters of
the bill when it came before the committee, I said this legislation
does not require the benefits provided by the program to be provided
equally across a State. I am from Michigan. I represent northern
Michigan, a very rural area.
So, for instance, if Michigan chose to provide for long-term care in
Grand Rapids, would they deny that same long-term care benefit to the
folks in the upper peninsula of Michigan? The drafters of the bill said
they could do that. So even in the State they are not even going to get
equal treatment if it is left to this Republican bill on Medicaid.
Medicaid recipients and their families cannot afford substantial cuts
in State spending and the Federal Government, and we cannot afford to
shift it all from the Federal Government to the State because neither
one can do it standing alone.
But I want to balance the budget. I know Mr. Pallone wants to, and
Mr. Doggett and Mr. Durbin, but there is a right way and there is a
wrong way to do it. So to try to fix things, Democrats offered a number
of amendments on Medicaid. Let me just hit 12 of them, if I can,
briefly.
Let us have an amendment in there would effectively prohibit fraud
and abuse in Medicaid. That was rejected. That was Mr. Dingell who
brought up that amendment.
So we said, Ms. Eshoo from California brought up an amendment that
said, let us have a guarantee of coverage for children, make sure the
kids are taken care of under Medicaid. Rejected.
Well, then let us take care of the elderly who need nursing home
care. That is what Medicare, that is what we spend two-thirds of the
money for. Let us do that. That was your amendment and Mr. Markey from
Massachusetts. That amendment was rejected.
We said, surely there has to be some compassion here. So let us
provide coverage for the elderly who have Alzheimer's disease. That was
Mr. Deutsch of Florida. He offered that amendment. Rejected.
So we said, surely we are going to take care of our veterans who need
nursing home care. Remember that one? Mr. Gordon of Tennessee brought
up that amendment. They will not even take care of veterans. That was
rejected under the Medicaid bill.
So we said, all right, can we at least take care of the seniors who
are in a nursing home now receiving Medicaid benefits. can we take care
of that one? Mr. Klink brought up that amendment. That was rejected.
Well, how about one of the Republicans, Mr. Ganske. He is a doctor on
the committee. He brought up, let us just guarantee current law to take
care of the kids. That was rejected.
Well, Mr. Richardson, he brought up the amendment that said, let us
guarantee coverage for native Americans,
[[Page H8083]]
Indians. I have seven tribes in my district, great amendment. That was
rejected by the majority party.
How about just allowing, this was Mr. Engel of New York and Mr.
Sherrod Brown of Ohio, how about just allowing the right of the elderly
to choose their own nursing home. If you are going to go on Medicaid,
you go to a nursing home, seniors, you get to choose which one you want
to go to. Rejected.
How about Ms. Furse of Oregon, who said, how about if we take care of
pregnant women and infants, kids under 2. that was rejected 14 to 25.
We said, all right, how about current law, we provide for women with
cancer, breast cancer and cervical cancer. Can we keep that coverage
going under Medicaid. No, that was rejected, 17 to 23. We lost that
one.
I said, hey, I am concerned about rural areas. We are treated
different than urban areas. Pay us the same, whether you live in
Escanaba, MI in the Upper Peninsula or in Grand Rapids, if you are in a
nursing home you should get paid the same. That was rejected. That way
my amendment.
How about just restoring the minimum payment standards for hospital
and nursing homes and managed care plans, restore the current minimum
funding for them. That your amendment, Mr. Pallone. That was rejected
16 to 24.
So the point is, it is more than just words. We offered commonsense
amendment for breast cancer, veterans, to let seniors choose their
nursing homes, take care of children, infants, help them out, come
together in a partnership, that is what this trust issue is all about.
Every one of our proposals were rejected.
So more than just the words of citizen Bob Dole or more than just the
words of Speaker Newt Gingrich, look at what their legislation really
does. As we move into this election year, I do hope we have debates.
And I hope they are not about just the words of what someone said but,
rather, the legislation they are proposing, because I think when you
look at the legislation that is proposed and what we as Democrats have
tried to stand up for, that safety net for seniors, for veterans, for
children, and see it being cut away, torn away by votes of 16 to 24,
where we lose commonsense amendments, then I think the trust will be
with the Democratic Party. The trust will be with more than just words
but, rather, with what the legislation proposes.
Again, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his leadership on
this issue. It is always a pleasure to work with you on the Energy and
Commerce Committee, especially the Health and Environment Subcommittee,
as we continue to bring common sense to this area.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
I am really pleased that the gentleman pointed out the relationship
between Medicaid and Medicare, because I think many people think that
Medicaid is a program that is primarily for the poor. Of course, it is.
But the bottom line is that two-thirds of the money under Medicaid pays
for nursing home care. It is very easy for someone who is middle class
or someone who is fairly wealthy after a few months or a few years, in
some cases, in a nursing home to find themselves on Medicaid. That is
why so much of the Medicaid dollars in fact go for senior citizens.
It is interesting, I want to yield, but I just wanted to say that we
started out the year, I think, certainly last year where the Republican
leadership was trying to cut and change dramatically Medicare. I think
as they realized politically that that was not working too well with
the American people, they started to talk about it less and less. Now
they do not want us to remind them about it.
Then they started going to Medicaid, because they figured, well,
maybe we can cut that and we can change that and people will not worry
about it so much because it only affects poor people. Then they
realized that these senior citizens, in particular, who are impacted by
changes in Medicaid, who objected to it, we brought it out. So now we
do not hear much talk about changes in Medicaid anymore either.
I think we can be sure that if the Republican leadership were to
continue into the next Congress and if we did not have President
Clinton out there threatening to veto these changes in Medicare and
Medicaid, we would see both the drastic changes in Medicare and
Medicaid come up once again.
{time} 2030
Mr. STUPAK. I mean look, if the partnership that I spoke of is no
longer there, that we are in Medicaid which pays for nursing home care,
and it is $38,000 a year, and you are only there for 5 days and they
pull the rug out from underneath you, who pays for it? If the senior
citizen cannot, it goes to the family. It is an indirect tax on the
families of this country. You are not going to throw your parents out
on the street for 360 days and get 5 days next year and then throw them
out again. You are going to pick up that cost, that $30,000 a year. Who
is going to be able to afford that?
Mr. PALLONE. Exactly; thank you.
I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman, and, you know, as I have listened
to your comments this evening and those of our other colleagues, I
think there are several conclusions that can be drawn about this
Medicare debate, and as important as Medicaid and Medicare are
themselves, some of the most important programs ever set up in this
Congress, I think the first conclusion is even more important than
Medicare, and that is the conclusion that, as you listen to this
debate, and you listen to the way the Republican leadership has run
away from Medicare, it is because the American people are paying
attention, and most of the people who are informed, who have followed
this debate, understand what the Republican majority, the first time
they got a majority in this Congress, the first thing they went after
was Medicare and Medicaid. They set out to undermine and dismantle
those systems, and the American people understand that.
All of the excuses and the subterfuges that have been brought up
here, when you get right down to it, the American people all over this
country who have followed this debate, they understand it, and they
know that Speaker Gingrich set out to cut Medicare and that he is still
committed to that program.
And I think the second conclusion that is very apparent from this
debate is there is no doubt what Speaker Gingrich was talking about,
and I know in the course of this special order you had the speech,
almost his entire speech, given again for him by our colleague from
Pennsylvania, but I want to emphasize that it is not only the words of
that speech, but as some of our other colleagues pointed out, and I am
quoting from a story in the New York Times 2 days after he gave the
speech, he was at a town meeting down in his district near Atlanta, and
the Atlanta Journal and Constitution reported that, quote, Gingrich
said he was referring to the fee-for-service portion of Medicare which
he believed that seniors would leave. That is what he said about
``wither on the vine.'' And 2 days after that, the Los Angeles Times
referred to his press secretary, Mr. Blankley, who said here in
Washington that what he was referring to in saying he wanted it to
wither on the vine, that Mr. Blankley said Mr. Gingrich's comments were
consistent with the Republican belief that seniors would voluntarily
leave the traditional Medicare system.
Now, that is one of the few times Mr. Blankley has said anything that
I, frankly, have agreed with. I agree with him completely that the
Speaker's comment that he wanted Medicare to wither on the vine was
consistent with the overall strategy. Indeed this was occurring at the
same time that our Republican colleagues, as you may already have
pointed out on Medicaid, came before the same committee that our
colleagues from Michigan was talking about, and they said, ``Let's just
totally eliminate, terminate forever, any Federal health and safety
standards for those who are in nursing homes.''
Now, I think that is the kind of extremism that the American people
reject. They realize that too often our nursing homes, though there are
many fine ones, some of them have kind of gone along from crisis to
crisis, and to say we will just totally abolish any kind of health and
safety standard for those who are not able to protect themselves in
nursing homes was part
[[Page H8084]]
of the same strategies that was going on at the same time. It was
consistent with that.
But I would draw a third conclusion from your comments, and that
would be a contrast between the Dole-Gingrich ticket with reference to
Medicare because, you know, as coincidence would have it, or maybe it
was not a coincidence, the same day that Speaker Gingrich gave his
speech, October 24, 1995, last fall when they were going gung ho, shut
the Government down, we do not care how many billions of dollars it
costs the taxpayers, close it down, which is what they did, and it came
up to about a billion and a half dollars that were squandered of
taxpayer money, but the very same day that Speaker Gingrich made his
comments Senator Dole was speaking the same day to a different group,
and he said, and I quote, I was there fighting the fight, 1 of 12
voting against Medicare in 1965 because we knew it would not work.
It may not be expected in this election year for a Democrat to
compliment a Republican, but I would tell my colleague from New Jersey
that I do compliment Senator Dole, not on the substance of what he said
about Medicare; indeed I could not disagree with him more on that, but
at least, unlike the Speaker and the House Republicans, Senator Dole
has not tried to run away from his comments. You do not see him going
around and saying, ``Well, when I was talking about voting against
Medicare, I was only talking about the Health Care Financing
Administration.'' He has stood by his statement. Indeed, he has taken
pride in the fact that he has a record here. Just as Speaker Gingrich
and these Republican followers of him who wanted to let Medicare wither
on the vine, Senator Dole has at least been willing to stand by his
belief that Medicare was a mistake.
And I think that is where this debate should be. It should be about
whether in the future of this country, and there is, no doubt, some
need for some restructuring and some improvement and some strengthening
of the Medicare and Medicaid system, but whether we will trust those
who believe in the value of insuring all of our seniors and protecting
them after all they have done for this country or whether we will turn
it over to someone who said I was proud 30 years ago that I voted
against Medicare at a time when well over half of the seniors had no
health insurance program at all, whether you are going to turn it over
to someone like that as well as someone who says, well, let us just let
Medicare wither on the vine, instead of standing by their statements,
as has so often happened here in the House on a variety of subjects.
Our Republican colleagues here in the House have, when caught and
when the American people have realized what has occurred here, they
have reacted by having their lawyers attempt to intimidate those who
would spread the word. They would like to distract the American people
and wait until after November to continue with letting Medicare wither
on the vine and to intimidate anyone who would remind the American
people, as our colleague from Pennsylvania pointed out, who would dare
to put on television the Speaker saying this in his own words, who
would dare to repeat those words to Americans who might not have heard
the speech, to Americans who may, in their struggle to make ends meet,
have forgotten what an outrageous comment and what an outrageous plan
this was.
And I know that the gentleman from New Jersey will remember that when
we were trying to get the details to find out how much they were going
to hike the premiums, how much they were going to hike the deductibles,
how much they wre going to hike the copayments, all things that were in
the secret plan originally, that the first plan that was laid out in
public was not a plan about how Medicare could be restructured. It was
a public relations plan. It was the one the gentleman will recall that
talked about kind of the herd mentality among our seniors and that they
could be led around by their nose basically and that they would not
realize what was being done to them in this instance.
History in the recent months has certainly demonstrated that that
public relations adviser, I think he is the same fellow involved in
this so-called Contract on America, was all off because the American
people are more intelligent than that. They realized what was happening
here, and as I have discussed with some of our folks down there in
Texas, you know if you have got a gardener that says, ``Let it wither,
let your plants wither on the vine,'' most people have the good sense
to realize that what you need is a new gardener because that is not the
kind of gardener you want tending to your plants, and it is certainly
not the kind of gardener that you want tending to something that is
important and is vital to people as Medicare.
And to all of those who say that this campaign with reference to
Medicare and making American people aware of it is too hard hitting, I
would just submit that they need to consider how hard hitting this plan
was on seniors, on individuals with disabilities. If this plan, as
originally envisioned, has gone into effect, the consequences would
have been dramatic, and if this election passes and there are not more
people here willing to stand up and fight against these Medicare cuts,
there is no doubt they will be back with the same secret plans that
they had in the past.
Mr. PALLONE. I would just add to the gentleman: You know, I think
that that is what elections should be all about: issues. That is what
we are talking about here. I would like to see less emphasis on
personality, which is what so many campaigns are about, and just talk
about issues. That is what we are talking about here, Medicare. It is
an issue, and to the extent that there are ads running that point out
where one side stands or the other on an issue as important as Medicare
to the American people, that is what this should be all about, a public
debate on the issues, and that is what the Democrats have been doing
essentially for the last 18 months, trying to point out what the
Republican leadership has been proposing on Medicare.
And I really think, as you said, Mr. Doggett, that most of my
constituents are aware of it. Over the weekend I had a lot of people, I
can just think of one woman in particular who came up to me when I was
at church on Sunday and said. ``You know, I don't want to lose my
doctor.'' She was not even concerned about the level of funding. She
just did not like the idea that she was going to be pushed into managed
care, which is essentially what this Republican plan would propose to
do.
So, I want to thank the gentleman for joining us tonight. We had a
lot of participants here tonight, but we are not going to let this die,
because I think we all realize that if this Republican leadership were
allowed to have its way, we would see drastic changes in Medicare and
cuts that ultimately would have it wither on the vine and cases to
exist as a program that benefits seniors and provides for quality care
and the level of services that they now have. So I want to thank the
gentleman.
____________________